June 21, 2023 • 39 mins
On July 7, 2013, 17-year-old Molly Miller and 22-year-old Colt Haynes disappear in Love County after a car chase with police.
The car was driven by a friend, James Con Nipp. Police lost the vehicle somewhere in the area of Long Hollow Rd. and Oswalt Rd in Love County, Oklahoma. Miller and Haynes disappear after the pursuit. Nipp was prosecuted for the car chase in 2014, but no one has been charged in the disappearances of Colt and Molly.
In this timely episode of Zone 7, Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum, talks with Lisa Ribacoff, a seasoned polygraph expert. Together, they explore the evolution of polygraph technology, its applications, and Ribacoff's unique experiences solving high-profile cases.
If you have any information about this case call 800-522-8017 or submit a tip online at tips@osbi.ok.gov
Show Notes:
- [0:00] Welcome back to Zone 7 with Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum.
- [1:54] Sheryl gives listeners a recap of the case of Molly Miller and Colt Haynes, who vanished after a high-speed police chase. If you missed the previous episode regarding this case visit this link Chasing the Truth: The Molly and Colt Case | Rob and Cindy, and Chasing the Truth: The Molly and Colt Case | Maureen O’Connell
- [3:09] Introduction to Lisa Ribacoff, a polygraph whiz, tracing her journey from a family business to multiple offices on the East Coast
- [7:30] Question: Regarding the audio and video that you received regarding Colt and Molly, can you tell us your first impressions, or takeaways from it?
- [8:20] Lisa elaborates on the first piece of evidence she examined - an intriguing audio recording
- [11:00] The duo stress the importance of emotional engagement and continuous training in their field
- [12:20] Question: Can you explain the strategy behind polygraph questioning?
- [16:00] Sheryl recounts her recent encounter with a polygraph test
- [17:37] The progression of polygraph technology, from analog to digital
- [20:00] “A 99 on a polygraph means that you didn't tell me a hundred percent of the truth”
- [21:31] Lisa shares her ability to detect deception, beyond the polygraph machine
- [23:30] How linguistic shifts can indicate deception
- [24:12] Question: How many polygraphs have you done?
- [29:55] Sheryl emphasizes the crucial role of expertise in preventing injustice
- [31:05] “We are both in our careers for the idea of closure”
- [31:52] Question: Will you address a little bit the polygraph as an investigative tool?
- [31:30] Lisa explains the primary objectives of polygraph tests
- [35:50] Question: With Colt and Molly, what do you think could be done now using your techniques?
- [38:51] “Listen, I don't know anything about polygraphs. And I don't know how accurate they are, but I know they'll scare the hell outta people.” -R.M.N
- Thanks for listening to another episode! If you’re loving the show and want to help grow the show, please head over to Itunes and leave a rating and review! How to Leave an Apple Podcast Review: First, Open the podcast app on your iPhone, Mac, or iPad. Then, hit the “Search” tab at the bottom right-hand corner of the page and search for Zone 7. Select the podcast, scroll d
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
It was the summer of nineteen seventy five, and my
sister Shelley and I got the Hippos Jewelry ever mood rings.
Our sister Charlene took us to pick them up at
the store, and Honey, we lost our minds. The ring
had this large oval shaped stone in the center that
(00:29):
would change colors to match your mood. There were seven colors,
each had a different mood associated with it, So if
it turned reddish brown, you were insecure about something. If
it was gold and yellow, you were tense. If you
were black, it was completely you were upset. If it
(00:49):
was blue, you were happy. And this violet color was
all about passion. Shelley could not wait to see if
her color changed when she saw her crush. She was
so hoping for the violet color, and in case she
ran into her neighborhood nemesis, she was certain that that
(01:14):
stone would turn black as a night. I, on the
other hand, had a better use of this remarkable ring.
It was going to be a lie detector. All I
had to do was get my subject to try the
ring on and then ask them a few questions to
see if they were nervous or tense or relaxed, then happy.
(01:37):
I was finally going to know scientifically that I was
my parent's favorite child. This is the third part of
a series on the case of Molly Miller and Colt Hayes.
It was July seventh, twenty thirteen, when Cold and Molly
went missing after being in a car chase with their
(02:01):
friend con Nip in Wilson, Oklahoma. Now this police chase,
if y'all remember, it got up to like one hundred
and twenty miles an hour, went all through some back roads,
ending near some woods, and Molly and Cot were never
seen again, even though they made several phone calls to
friends and to nine one one that night and early
(02:22):
morning hours the following day. This case is extraordinarily unusual
because we don't have a crime scene, we don't have
a sighting of the two after that night. We don't
have any more phone calls after the eighth. This case
is bizarre, to say the least. I've brought somebody to
(02:43):
join us tonight. It's gonna be able to shed some
light on this thing, y'all. I'm just gonna start by
saying she is fun, and I don't mean a little bit.
I don't mean entertaining. I don't mean a good sense
of humor. I'm talking about wide open, pedaled down fun.
And she is as smart as she has fun. She
(03:05):
was just sixteen years old when she started working in
the family business. While other folks her age were playing
sports or going to club meetings, she was running background
checks and speaking with attorneys about things like custodial kidnappings.
At twenty three, she completed polygraph school. She added greatly
(03:27):
then to her growing caseload. During this time in her career,
the Catholic Church had members being accused of molestation and abuse.
Our guests turned her polygraph in as a tool on
these cases. Because insurance companies they were receiving claims in lawsuits.
(03:47):
So she struck out and said, hey, I'm going to
use this to help out with these cases. Right out
of school, she was booked for a TV appearance. She
was dubbed then the lie detector lady, and it has
kind of stuck. She might have started working out as family,
but I'm going to tell you right now, Yes, her
(04:07):
dad is her mentor, but anybody that has ever worked
for their family knows how difficult it is. Nothing has
been handed to her. She went to school, she studied,
she graduated, She built up her clientele base. She alone
has built her reputation. She operates now in seven different
(04:32):
offices along the East Coast. Y'all, please help me. Welcome
to Zone seven, Lisa Rabakov.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Thanks Mac, thanks for having me. It's an absolute pleasure
and honor not only being here on your podcast, but
being a part of your Zone seven, which is such
a cherished and special place to be.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Thank you. I tell you you have been such a
big part of it for me. Not only have you
always answered my phone calls and helped me with different cases,
but you also give what I tell people is so
important a balance. You and I had a chance to
be on the Crime Con Crime Cruise together, where we
were with Paul Holes and CC Moore and Elena Burgh's
(05:16):
and some just extraordinarily family members that had some significant cases.
But you gave a balance to that. And when I
tell people you are fun, y'all, let me tell you something.
When you walk in when you walk into a bar
in Mexico and you're sitting at the bar just kind
(05:37):
of watching people and observing, and then you hear a
familiar voice and you turn and you see your friend
and colleague dancing up on a table to YMCA. I
don't know. It's just one of those moments where you're like, yes,
that person right there and I that is why we're friends,
(05:57):
right there people. And I remember we're walking up to
the table and when you saw me, you're like hey,
and I was like, can I join you? And you're like, girl, please, yes,
jump on this chair. So here's the thing. There is
a needed balance, don't you agree, Lisa.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
I think one hundred percent that a lot of I
guess participants and or audience members of the true crime industry,
or even law enforcement in general, need to remember that
at the end of the day, as working individuals tied
to these cases, and obviously some are more severe than others,
but we need to have that home life work balance
(06:35):
and including work, and that it kind of gave me
an opportunity to go ahead and have that balance. Yes,
we were on a cruise and I was having a
good time. But you put on some good music and
you go ahead and you give me a dance floor,
but in this case it was a chair that we
were standing on.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
Then go for it.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
But I will clarify that you were responsible and you
did not join me on dancing on the chair. You
did the YMCA with your feet platted for the ground.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Yes, lowerd absolutely, but I tell you I wouldn't have
had any more fun had I been three feet higher
in the air. It was just a great time.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
It was a fantastic time, And the cruise is such
a great opportunity to give people that one on one experience.
That's really what we're there for. And I like the
fact that we have an opportunity to do a deep
dive and really get the exposure for on Colton Molly's
case to the general public in a kind of different venue.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
No question, the audio and video that you received regarding
Cold and Mollie, tell us your first impressions. Tell us
what you did with it and what you gleaned from it.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Okay, So the first thing that I had actually done
was speak to Robin Cindy on the phone and they
looped me in. We actually have a lot of a
couple of friends through the industry on the intertime inside.
So originally when I first heard from them, I was like,
I don't really know, is this actually reputable or is
this some guy sitting on the phone with a tinfoil
high trying to give me a life explanation about a case.
(08:03):
But after going ahead and speaking with them, I just
knew right away that I had to get involved in
add my contribution as much as possible, because I don't
know if you know this, but next month is actually
ten years that this case has not been solved.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
Yes, I talked to Paula yesterday. It's just mind boggling.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
It's mind boggling and heartbreaking is not even the word anymore.
Taking a look at the first actually the first piece
that I did was the audio recording. Cindy and Rob
had emailed me an audio clip that Paula had taken.
And in the state of Oklahoma, it's a one party state,
which means that audio and video recordings you do not
need the consent of the person that you're recording. So
(08:42):
Paula took a recorder or her cell phone. I'm not
sure what device you used, but she physically had it
on her person and she in an interviewed a gentleman,
and gentleman apparently was there at the time of the incident,
and I referred to it as an incident because we're
not we can't rule it as a murder. We can't
(09:02):
rool it as a homicide, we can't classify it as anything,
because there's so much information that we don't know. So
I like to just be sensitive to language when it
comes to certain things. So I'm just going to refer
to it as the incident. And he was very graphic,
very descriptive pertaining to the tree, what was done, what
they were wearing, the location, the time frame, time of day,
(09:26):
accuracy of even like what time he thought it was.
It was unbelievable just to have who we would call
in a courtroom the star witness, that would be the ideal.
He's the one that really has the knowledge. And again,
he was there, so maybe he did not get directly
involved with the incident, but he's a party to the
action because he was physically there. I understand why he
(09:49):
doesn't want to go ahead and get himself involved any
further because he is fearful for his life, and that's Rightaly, So,
considering the individuals that we're dealing with, not just pertaining
to the suspects, but we're talking, as you mentioned earlier,
the corruption going on at the local level as well
as the state level, with the district attorneys locally in
(10:11):
addition to law enforcement, DA's for the local county. It's
the epitome of bad blood. It's absolutely horrible. Going ahead
and taking a look at him with regards to the
audio tape, I sat down and I wrote out a
statement analysis of what he was stating and what he
was dictating and the length of time it was but
(10:31):
in between his words, as well as his choice of
language objective language versus subjective language, and isolating the emotional component,
because given the circumstances, even us working this case, if
we're not emotional and we're not tied to this case,
then we've been doing our jobs way too long, and
that that's our time to retire. If a case that
(10:52):
you're working doesn't make you feel some type of way,
whether it's angry, upset, happy, then we have no business
doing our job.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
I can't agree more. I mean, I say it all
the time. When it stops being something that I feel
excited about and my adrenaline starts pumping and I want
to jump in the middle of it, and I want
to help somebody, and I want to right or wrong,
then it's time for me to go, you know, sit
by the water somewhere it's absolutely true.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Yeah, it's the same thing with us. I mean, and
I see it sometimes some of the cases that come
across my desk, not even just on the polygraph side,
because I'm also a private investigator where I'll speak to
some detectives that have just that are there and they're
in that hole I can't like go stage and I
can't retire yet, and maybe they've got kids in college.
Whatever the person circumstances is. That's fine. But I feel
(11:39):
like sometimes when individuals do retire, you can get that
new young blood, and the new young blood sometimes may
have a different perception to the cases because training today
is not what it was however many years ago. As
you know, there's some individuals that work in certain agencies,
they just become complacent. They refuse to learn, they refuse
(11:59):
to get the continuing education, the training courses, so they're
not up to date. So I'm not saying I'm pro retirement,
but I am very much pro continuing ed and making
sure that our officers and our colleagues are up to
date with the standard of practice.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
So let's talk about polygraph questions, because it's always a
debate in CID what questions should we ask and how
should it be phrased?
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Okay, so questions on a polygraph. Really there is a
maximum of four questions, four relevant questions. Depending upon the
format that the examiner is using, there could be anywhere
from a total of eight to ten questions on an
exam because we have control questions, we have irrelevant questions,
and we have questions such as referred to as symptomatic relevance,
(12:54):
meaning they're relevant to the situation, but symptomatic I want
to test kind of where your head is at. And
examples like that are or do you plan to lie
to any question on the test? And then the last
question would be did you lie to any question on
the test? So there's the relevant questions, meaning they're relevant
to what the situation is that's being tested. We can
ask a minimum of two or a maximum of four
(13:14):
on the exam. Then you have the irrelevant questions, which
are your baseline questions. Is this the year twenty twenty three?
Is today Friday? Aren't you sitting down right now? Is
this the month of June? Things like that. So I
have data from the individual at the time of testing
that those are known truths and that these are their
baseline responses. Then we have things that are referred to
(13:37):
as control or comparison questions. I'm going to ask you
questions similar to the relevant ones, meaning that they're about
the topic, but they're to go ahead engage probable lies
or directed lives. So let's say I was testing my boyfriend,
and I would say, since in a relationship have you
had sexual physical contact with anyone other than me? And
(13:59):
of course I would never my boyfriend because he's a saint,
and I'm going to keep it to that, But listen,
after you, after being thirty six years old in this
line of work and finally being able to lock a
man down knowing that he didn't go running once he
found out what I did for work, I have to
say a prayer to Jesus for that one.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Amen. But yep, So.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Comparison questions would be like, since in a relationship have
you flirted with another woman? Since in a relationship have
you come on to another woman? Since in a relationship
have you done anything that if she found out about it,
she would leave you? So those are kind of more
triggering questions, where in that case, if let's say my
boyfriend didn't cheat on me, he'd be more concerned about
(14:40):
those comparison questions, and those would go ahead and be
more probable for him to lie to so I can
see a lie reaction, Whereas if he's guilty, he's not
going to be worried about those questions. He's going to
be worried about, Oh, crahaps she's found out. She's going
to find out that she cheated on me. And the
same thing works in criminal investigations. I was dealing with
(15:01):
someone that was being accused of a sexual assault against
a minor or an adult, whoever the victim is. We
would ask them questions a relevancy pertaining to what they're
charged with, and those questions would come from the complaint
from court from grand jury of what the charges are,
or it would come from the witness and or complain
in victim's statement. Those comparison questions would be pertaining to
(15:26):
his prior actions of has he ever deliberately hurt someone
under his care in the past, has he ever gone
ahead and possibly excessively masturbated. Has he gone ahead and
possibly abused other women previously in the past, Just to
go ahead and show that he doesn't have a repeated
history of behavior.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Now your profession has changed a great deal. Like when
I first started, there was a little thing they put
around It's like a little bailt almost, that went around
your chest and then your finger and all these other
things in the polygrapher just stared at the machine, just
watched the needle the whole time. Well, the last one
that I had recently, it was just my eye and
(16:11):
he watched me the whole time. And I found that
really interesting. And let me clarify for people listening the
reason I had to take one recently. When you are
the crime scene investigator and the evidence custodian, if anything
goes missing or anything looks different or in and right
and there's an IA, you automatically are part of that investigation.
(16:35):
Several of us had to go recently and have a
polygraph because some evidence went missing. So again it was
the latest and greatest tool I guess that they sent
me to and I was just captivated by how this
was not invasive anyway, It was quick. There were very
(16:55):
few questions. I think there was maybe only five questions
and I was done. So I didn't know if you
have changed your equipment through the years, And like you said,
added the statement analysis and the body language bit.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
So the equipment actually started off with what's referred to
as the analog instrument, which is that giant gold gold cap,
the suitcase looking thing that would sit on the table
and you would watch the paper roll out on the
to the floor pretty much as long as the chart
was going and it was still measuring the same things.
It was still measuring heart rates, sweatland activity as well
as breathing. Coming up with the times, instrument manufacturers have
(17:33):
now developed the digital program. And what the digital program
is is pretty much the laptop computer which is attached
to a small little box and the boxes all of
the components plugged into it. So that's where you hear
the phrase of can you beat the box. The box
now is just a small little it's probably half the
size of a normal tissue box container, and that's the
(17:55):
actual polygraph with all the sensors and then the physical
chart tracings go into the computer. So what we would
see on the computer now is what used to show
up with the paper rolling out. The analog instrument actually
is typically now used with TV commercials and props and
movies because it's more recognizable as a polygraph instrument. That's
(18:16):
what people see, that's what they hear, that's what they've
been conditioned to. But now everything is digital. And the
reason why we've also gone digital is because, over the
evolution of time with regards to technology and science improving,
we have now found ways and by we, I mean
not me directly, but I'm talking on behalf of the
whole industry that we have found other components that we
(18:37):
can use to go ahead and determine deception. And the
most common one now being used is what's referred to
as the pull sox. I mean, everyone should know what
the pull sox is. We've all been through the pandemic
and we've even been to doctor's office. It's the thing
that you put on your finger to check the oxygen
in your blood. And now that we've learned with regards
to the call for oxygen with physiological responses, the individuals
(19:02):
oxygen level will decrease when they're lying or sorry, not
mind being deceptive. So that's another tool that we've incorporated
into it, in addition to sensors that are built into
our chairs as well as onto the sea, so we
know if an individual is trying to do countermeasures. Because
the golden rule is you wouldn't try and beat a
(19:22):
polygraph test if you knew that you were.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Going to pass. Simply stated, you're not going to pass.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
A polygraph test if you're not going to tell the truth.
And what I do is I actually take out a
piece of paper and I start making a tea chart
and I give the analysis of if you get a
hundred on a test in school, what does that mean?
And typically the smart one goes, oh, I got an
AI passed And I said, okay, good, what about a polygraph?
If you get a hundred on a polygraph, what does
that mean? And they go, oh, well, I passed, they
(19:49):
said perfect. I said what if you get a ninety
nine on a test in school? And they're like, oh,
I passed, but I'm just one point away. And I go, okay,
what about a ninety nine on a polygraph? They're like,
I passed, and I go, you're wrong. Ninety nine on
a polygraph means that you didn't tell me one hundred
percent of the truth. So the smallest little detail can
trip someone up on a polygraph test, which is why
(20:11):
it's really important that the examiner reviews the questions beforehand
to make sure that even the choice of language are
the questions that everything is clearly defined.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
And I just want to remind everybody she mentioned her
relationship earlier. Can you imagine if he's at ninety nine percent?
Oh yeah, oh this is hard. Yeah, you know what
I mean.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
He's a good eye. I got lucky. And the best
part is.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Oh, you know, I'm Jesus, No, I know, you know listen,
but like Mac, you know me.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
So for me to put up with anyone, or for
anyone to put up with me, we all need to
say a prayer for each other.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Oh yeah, but you're just laughing because listen to your analogy.
I'm like, oh, yeah, ninety nine percent, that is all good,
and you're like, nope. And then when you said that, no,
you're being deceptive about something. So they're that's where now
this investigation has to go. Is with that one percent?
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Yeah, I mean I mean comparatively that sometimes with women,
depending upon who's sitting in front of me, and I'm like,
how sensitive I feel that they're being. I'll say, listen,
it's like being you're being pregnant. You're pregnant, You're not
You're not a little pregnant, You're not a lot of pregnant.
It's what's one or the other.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
You said to me something a while back, you said, well,
I don't even need the person to be there with me.
It can even be somebody that's on TV. Would you
please get into that for me and explain to people
what you're talking about.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
Of course, So typically the polygraph examination obviously requires the
individual to be in front of me, present at one
of my locations, or I can go to their offices,
and that way we can attach the components pertaining to
spec land activity, respiratory activity, and blood pressure activity. And
what I've been trained in is to go ahead and
analyze deception through verbal speech patterns as well as body language,
(21:56):
in addition to even handwritten notes. So an individual can
go ahead and give me a statement pertaining to their
impression of what the crime was and or their side
of the story, and I can analyze it and go
ahead and determine are their signs of deception even in handwriting.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Okay, I think everybody's minds should be blown because again
people think I've got to be hooked up to this
machine for them to be able to get any type
of reading. It's not true. So if somebody had a
case where they could give you a nine one one
call and a whole movie and a police interview. You
could take those three things and analyze them and show
(22:36):
where the person's speech pattern changed, their body language changed,
and what that may or may not mean from the
questions that are beging to asked and the environment that
they're in.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
True, Yeah, True. I can go ahead and take a
look at a police interrogation video of the interview being done,
and I can go ahead and analyze the speech verbal
change of language in addition to hesitancy and latency and responses.
Even going ahead and taking a look and zooming in
at the pupils and with regards to rapid eye movement
(23:08):
and what direction the eyes are going, whether to the
left or the right, I can go ahead and determine
change of pronouns in language. Sometimes, for instance, using cases
involving miners, but specifically babies or infants, the parent and
or a person being interviewed sometimes can refer to as
my daughter, my daughter, my daughter, or my son, my son,
(23:30):
my son, and then once they go ahead and transition
and refer to the baby. An example of that is
them going ahead and isolating themselves from the child and
the crime and just referring to them as the baby
once they become deceased.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
And when I went through statement analysis training, our instructor
said over and over and over, a change of pronouns
means a change in reality.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
How many polygraphs have you done?
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Oh? God, you know what? I guess this question asked
a lot, And to be honest, I've never kept track.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Well, I will tell you I get asked the same thing,
how many cases have you worked on? I have no idea,
And it always amazes me when somebody can give an
exact number, because if you look at cases that I've worked,
been an expert own, or that I've just reviewed for
either TV, newspaper or magazine, I couldn't even begin to give.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
You a number exactly. And I think for sometimes with
those people that they're able to shoot out a number
right away. Obviously, we know that there's a plus or
minus field for how many cases you've worked you can't estimate.
But I feel like that there are some people that
just thrive on that number, where it becomes kind of
like part of their disposition and who they are and
what they're about. I can't live like that. I'm not
(24:45):
here as an examiner to live by a number. I'm
here to go ahead and give closure to individuals that
need it.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
I tell people all the time when I teach junior folks,
I can throw a party. But if I all of
a sudden get my sister involved, who can cook, And
I've got my sister involved, who's got music, And I've
got another sister that's got extra tables and chairs. Now
we're getting somewhere. Yeah, Well, then I've got another sister
(25:16):
that's going to bring us a set of her friends
that well, I mean, they're a party by themselves, so
they're going to put mine at the next level. And
then I'm going to invite folks like you. Well, now
we're talking about an epic event, whereas if I had
just done it by myself, it's very different. So if
you've got five different agencies and they can all put
(25:36):
some money in, they can all put some resources in,
they can all put some extraordinarily talented investigators in. Now
we're going to get somewhere.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Look at the work that we did in Indiana. Look
at the about of resources that with regards to Abby
and Libby's case from the time and the effort that
so many outside experts have done. I mean, I went
out to India at a state police because I went
to lecture to their polygraph examiners. They needed their continuing education,
(26:06):
so they reached out to me about coming out there.
So I spent about two or three days out there
with their officers, and I spoke with a couple of
people about the case and just to hear that the
resources that were going on and even some of their examiners.
I had been getting phone calls and text messages with
of Oh, we think we have a suspect, or we
think we have this, or we're going to be running
this type of exam. What are your thoughts and what
are your opinions? For me to even be able to
(26:29):
contribute that capacity, I felt grateful that they recognized me
as a source, because again, I'm a civilian. I've never
been to a police academy. The only government training that
I've ever had was going to an American Polygraph Association conference,
which I sit on the board of directors now for.
And I've attended seminars by instructors from the Secret Service
or NSA or the FBI, but I have no formal,
(26:52):
specific federal training. Everything that I've done and acquired has
been through my own learning. And again, as my father
is my mentor, I got very blessed to start off
in the family business early on. But I just think
that everyone should understand that just because he is my mentor,
and just because I started off young, I boss did
my you know what to get everything that I've got.
(27:13):
It definitely wasn't handed to.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
Me one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
And you and I, actually you and I had a
conversation about that, because Caroline's going to be applied to
schools and jobs and things like that also.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Right correct. And my son Hug is working now as
an investigator with the Public Defender's Office. And I can
tell you people will say to me, oh, well, of
course that's what they're doing. Let me tell y'all something
in some regard it works against them. Yeah, oh yeah,
you know, And I know you know. And the thing is,
(27:43):
they both have their own skill sets that they come
with because some of the gifts that Hug and Caroline
have you can't train. They both have horse sense, they
both have common sense, they both have compassion. You can't
teach those things. They either have it or they don't.
(28:04):
So you know, when huck first came to me and
he was like, Hey, I think I'm going to take
this job. I'm really excited about it. With the Public
Defender's Office. Well, a lot of people will joke and say, well,
you know, you must be real disappointed. Are you kidding me?
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (28:19):
No, that child is going to work twice as hard
for the best reason. Nobody, no investigator in the world
wants somebody innocent to go to prison, not a good one.
I mean, that would be something that would just eat
it you if you found out that this person's been
exonerated and you had a hand in putting them in prison,
(28:43):
what did you miss? I mean, that would be something
that's a nightmare.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
I would never sleep a day in my life. I
was actually supposed to be in London today over at
Crime gon UK and I canceled that trip because I
had gotten that phone call from the Federal Defender's Office
about there about the client on death row. And I
said to myself, I was like, you know what, if
I have an opportunity to make sure that a man
doesn't lose his life or something that he did not
(29:08):
did do not to you, I can't even speak now.
If he's going to lose his life for something that
he didn't do. I mean, I just need losing my
words because I'm so angry about this case and I'm
so passionate. But just to make sure that I can
play the role and make you sure that he does
not lose his life over something that he didn't do,
is I had to jump at it.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
But see, I think that's the perfect thing because you
work both sides. On the one hand, you do not
want an innocent person to go to prison, and you're
going to use all of your expertise to make sure
that doesn't happen. On the other side, you know there's
a killer walking around Oklahoma and you're not okay with that,
and you're going to use all your expertise to make
sure that doesn't continue to happen. So I think when
(29:49):
people talk to me or you or any of the
folks in our Zone seven, that's how we operate. Nobody
wants injustice, None of us that are in my world,
you know, want that to happen. Are there bad eggs
like in the case of Molly and Colt, where the
sheriff did end up getting indicted and was found guilty.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Of everything under the sun.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Doing a couple of things. I mean, that does happen,
But I'm telling you, in the scheme of things, when
you're talking about over seven hundred thousand law enforcement personnel,
he ain't even one percent. I promise you he's not.
And when we find those people, we go after them
with just as much vigor.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
We have seen throughout our careers the abuse that takes
place pertaining to being in law enforcement and having the badge,
And at the end of the day, we are both
in our careers for the idea of closure, of giving
people the answers they need pertaining to what happens in
(30:56):
a situation, and obviously me testing someone for a polygraph
test and whether or not they're significant other cheated versus
the work that you're doing with regards to crime scenes
and going ahead and developing what you need to to
support the case file so the families can have the
I guess closure that they need. But closure comes in
different capacities, whether it's positive or negative. We're giving the
answers to them that they need, and it's up to
(31:18):
them how they want to take the information that we've
acquired and work with.
Speaker 1 (31:24):
Last thing I want you to address, is it because
we get it a lot. When we start offering people
a polygraph, they'll say, well, that's not even admissible in court.
They love to say that, oh it's number one thing,
But will you address a little bit the polygraph as
an investigative tool.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
What happens is is that in criminal cases is it
allows me to go ahead and take a look at
who's the suspect and who's not. I want to clear people.
The polygraph isn't there to catch anyone. It's really there
to clear the innocent. And I think that's a big
misconception that oh, it's just there to trap everyone and
it's there to go ahead and show that they did
this or they did that. No, I want to clear
(32:03):
the innocent. I want to show that you did not
do what you're being accused of. So polygraphs have become
a way to use as an investigative tool, which in
law enforcement capabilities, the polygraph can be administered and it
will a clear the innocent b it will go ahead
and also test suspects. And one of the coolest thing
(32:24):
that I like about polygraph exams is something called a
peak of tension test, where if I have a suspect
in front of me, and I think that they could
possibly be tied to the being the person that committed
whatever crime it is. And let's say it's a murderer,
I can ask them was the murder weapon a gun,
a knife, a scissor, or any other types of baseball bat?
(32:44):
And what will happen is is that if they hit
on the specific murder weapon that we already know as
law enforcement is the actual weapon, that's a way that
we're able to go ahead and build a case against
the suspect because you wouldn't know what the murder weapon
is if you didn't commit the crime. So there's different
(33:05):
techniques and different types of polygraph tests that we can
run to go ahead and rule out the innocent as
well as convict the guilty. But going back to your
question about admissibility, polygraph tests in the United States are
admissible in one state, and that state is New Mexico.
There is admissibility in all federal venues, including immigration court,
(33:30):
which has now become a big thing pertaining to the
asylum as well as the border control issues, which is
a separate story. But with regards to admissibility by stipulation,
it's allowed with regards to both the defendant and the plaintiff,
whether it's a civil matter or a criminal matter, for
both individuals, as well as the courts to stipulate what
(33:52):
exactly will be admissible and what will not. And I
would say that takes place in about fifteen to twenty states,
but otherwise in the rest to the country it's not admissible.
I can speak to New York, which is predominantly where
my practice is based out of where on the criminal side,
it's allowed on pre conviction and post conviction of if
(34:14):
an individual is gone ahead and under investigation for let's
say bank robbery, but they didn't actually shoot the guard
during the robbery, they only drove the getaway car, so
they can take a pre conviction polygraph test pertaining to
their narrative of the bank robbery, so they can get
a reduced sentence versus I didn't actually kill the guard.
(34:35):
The other side of it is post conviction, which is
the innocent project work that we've talked about previously during
our chat here, which I'm absolutely loving, by the way,
where the innocent individuals are wrongfully convicted and they can
go ahead and file wh's referred to as a four
to forty motion to vacate their conviction and they'll take
a polygraph test to go ahead and show that they
(34:57):
didn't do this, And it does work with a guard
post conviction. There was an individual that had served twenty
seven years in a Buffalo facility in New York. He
took a polygraph test with our office. He was released
within forty eight hours after doing twenty seven years.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
Wow, Mercy, Yeah, could you imagine?
Speaker 2 (35:15):
No?
Speaker 1 (35:16):
I mean I can't, And that's what I'm telling you.
Those stories are just gut wrenching. But that's again why
I wanted people to hear from you today, and that's
why when I started by saying she is as smart
as she is fun, it's the truth. So with Colt
and Molly, what do you think could be done now
using your techniques that have not been done.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
From the conversations that you and I have had offline
pertaining to this, I mean, there's deception just flying past
their heads and hit in the.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
Wall from almost everybody involved, from the sheriff to the
friend driving, to neighbors to I mean, you just don't
even know who or what to believe because so much
of it is unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
I really truly think that this case needs a fresh
set of eyes, not only from OBSI, but also top
to bottom, like whoever has had their hands or even
a finger on this case needs to just be removed.
And you do need a whole new team, because again,
advancements and technology are different possibilities. I mean, look at
(36:22):
what's going on in the media now, how cases are
being made with DNA. How much DNA testing was previously done.
We don't know. We don't even know if what we've
seen in a case file is even accurate, because there's
so much corruption from the agency that there could be
pieces of evidence that are not even inventoried, evidence that
wasn't even properly collected, chain of custody wasn't done effectively,
(36:43):
So it's put god only knows aware in what box.
So I think that as a whole, the agency needs
to be welcoming of outside vendors and or subcontractors to
come in and really assist their investigation. I think that
because it is a smaller agency, because it is a
smaller county, they also don't have the resources. And if
(37:05):
you don't have the resources, you need to put your
pride aside. Again. Next month, we're coming up on ten
years of no answers, ten years of disappropriation of government funding,
not putting put towards this case, ten years of judicial
and what legal malpractice is what I like to call it.
So something's got to get done because there's no reason
(37:27):
that this should be in the situation that it is. Well.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
I have been advocating that this case needs to be
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Oh yeah, BIA needs
to take this case over period.
Speaker 2 (37:39):
But the issue is obs I won't do it because
if it's an ego and pride.
Speaker 1 (37:42):
Thing, we will see because ego and pride has no place.
It has no place, no, not an ecomal investigation. I mean,
it's got to be teamwork. You've got to just everybody
that's got a tool and an expertise and a valid idea.
They need to all come together. I appreciate you being here,
(38:03):
and you will be back. There's no doubt we have
other cases we need to talk about together. But I
just wanted people to hear from you. Hear all the
different sides of a polygraph, all the different ways it
can be used as an investigative tool to put people
in prison and to get people out, And to me,
that's the whole gig. Right there, y'all. I'm going to
(38:24):
end Zone seven the way that I always do with
a quote, but tonight it ain't from somebody that was
in my Zone seven. It's just a quote that I
thought was particularly applicable. Listen. I don't know anything about polygraphs,
and I don't know how accurate they are, but I
know they'll scare the hell out of people. Richard M. Nixon,
(38:47):
I'm Cheryl McCollum, and this is Zone seven.
Speaker 2 (39:00):
Listen. Name
It was the summer of nineteen seventy five, and my
sister Shelley and I got the Hippos Jewelry ever mood rings.
Our sister Charlene took us to pick them up at
the store, and Honey, we lost our minds. The ring
had this large oval shaped stone in the center that
(00:29):
would change colors to match your mood. There were seven colors,
each had a different mood associated with it, So if
it turned reddish brown, you were insecure about something. If
it was gold and yellow, you were tense. If you
were black, it was completely you were upset. If it
(00:49):
was blue, you were happy. And this violet color was
all about passion. Shelley could not wait to see if
her color changed when she saw her crush. She was
so hoping for the violet color, and in case she
ran into her neighborhood nemesis, she was certain that that
(01:14):
stone would turn black as a night. I, on the
other hand, had a better use of this remarkable ring.
It was going to be a lie detector. All I
had to do was get my subject to try the
ring on and then ask them a few questions to
see if they were nervous or tense or relaxed, then happy.
(01:37):
I was finally going to know scientifically that I was
my parent's favorite child. This is the third part of
a series on the case of Molly Miller and Colt Hayes.
It was July seventh, twenty thirteen, when Cold and Molly
went missing after being in a car chase with their
(02:01):
friend con Nip in Wilson, Oklahoma. Now this police chase,
if y'all remember, it got up to like one hundred
and twenty miles an hour, went all through some back roads,
ending near some woods, and Molly and Cot were never
seen again, even though they made several phone calls to
friends and to nine one one that night and early
(02:22):
morning hours the following day. This case is extraordinarily unusual
because we don't have a crime scene, we don't have
a sighting of the two after that night. We don't
have any more phone calls after the eighth. This case
is bizarre, to say the least. I've brought somebody to
(02:43):
join us tonight. It's gonna be able to shed some
light on this thing, y'all. I'm just gonna start by
saying she is fun, and I don't mean a little bit.
I don't mean entertaining. I don't mean a good sense
of humor. I'm talking about wide open, pedaled down fun.
And she is as smart as she has fun. She
(03:05):
was just sixteen years old when she started working in
the family business. While other folks her age were playing
sports or going to club meetings, she was running background
checks and speaking with attorneys about things like custodial kidnappings.
At twenty three, she completed polygraph school. She added greatly
(03:27):
then to her growing caseload. During this time in her career,
the Catholic Church had members being accused of molestation and abuse.
Our guests turned her polygraph in as a tool on
these cases. Because insurance companies they were receiving claims in lawsuits.
(03:47):
So she struck out and said, hey, I'm going to
use this to help out with these cases. Right out
of school, she was booked for a TV appearance. She
was dubbed then the lie detector lady, and it has
kind of stuck. She might have started working out as family,
but I'm going to tell you right now, Yes, her
(04:07):
dad is her mentor, but anybody that has ever worked
for their family knows how difficult it is. Nothing has
been handed to her. She went to school, she studied,
she graduated, She built up her clientele base. She alone
has built her reputation. She operates now in seven different
(04:32):
offices along the East Coast. Y'all, please help me. Welcome
to Zone seven, Lisa Rabakov.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Thanks Mac, thanks for having me. It's an absolute pleasure
and honor not only being here on your podcast, but
being a part of your Zone seven, which is such
a cherished and special place to be.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Thank you. I tell you you have been such a
big part of it for me. Not only have you
always answered my phone calls and helped me with different cases,
but you also give what I tell people is so
important a balance. You and I had a chance to
be on the Crime Con Crime Cruise together, where we
were with Paul Holes and CC Moore and Elena Burgh's
(05:16):
and some just extraordinarily family members that had some significant cases.
But you gave a balance to that. And when I
tell people you are fun, y'all, let me tell you something.
When you walk in when you walk into a bar
in Mexico and you're sitting at the bar just kind
(05:37):
of watching people and observing, and then you hear a
familiar voice and you turn and you see your friend
and colleague dancing up on a table to YMCA. I
don't know. It's just one of those moments where you're like, yes,
that person right there and I that is why we're friends,
(05:57):
right there people. And I remember we're walking up to
the table and when you saw me, you're like hey,
and I was like, can I join you? And you're like, girl, please, yes,
jump on this chair. So here's the thing. There is
a needed balance, don't you agree, Lisa.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
I think one hundred percent that a lot of I
guess participants and or audience members of the true crime industry,
or even law enforcement in general, need to remember that
at the end of the day, as working individuals tied
to these cases, and obviously some are more severe than others,
but we need to have that home life work balance
(06:35):
and including work, and that it kind of gave me
an opportunity to go ahead and have that balance. Yes,
we were on a cruise and I was having a
good time. But you put on some good music and
you go ahead and you give me a dance floor,
but in this case it was a chair that we
were standing on.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
Then go for it.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
But I will clarify that you were responsible and you
did not join me on dancing on the chair. You
did the YMCA with your feet platted for the ground.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Yes, lowerd absolutely, but I tell you I wouldn't have
had any more fun had I been three feet higher
in the air. It was just a great time.
Speaker 2 (07:12):
It was a fantastic time, And the cruise is such
a great opportunity to give people that one on one experience.
That's really what we're there for. And I like the
fact that we have an opportunity to do a deep
dive and really get the exposure for on Colton Molly's
case to the general public in a kind of different venue.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
No question, the audio and video that you received regarding
Cold and Mollie, tell us your first impressions. Tell us
what you did with it and what you gleaned from it.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Okay, So the first thing that I had actually done
was speak to Robin Cindy on the phone and they
looped me in. We actually have a lot of a
couple of friends through the industry on the intertime inside.
So originally when I first heard from them, I was like,
I don't really know, is this actually reputable or is
this some guy sitting on the phone with a tinfoil
high trying to give me a life explanation about a case.
(08:03):
But after going ahead and speaking with them, I just
knew right away that I had to get involved in
add my contribution as much as possible, because I don't
know if you know this, but next month is actually
ten years that this case has not been solved.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
Yes, I talked to Paula yesterday. It's just mind boggling.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
It's mind boggling and heartbreaking is not even the word anymore.
Taking a look at the first actually the first piece
that I did was the audio recording. Cindy and Rob
had emailed me an audio clip that Paula had taken.
And in the state of Oklahoma, it's a one party state,
which means that audio and video recordings you do not
need the consent of the person that you're recording. So
(08:42):
Paula took a recorder or her cell phone. I'm not
sure what device you used, but she physically had it
on her person and she in an interviewed a gentleman,
and gentleman apparently was there at the time of the incident,
and I referred to it as an incident because we're
not we can't rule it as a murder. We can't
(09:02):
rool it as a homicide, we can't classify it as anything,
because there's so much information that we don't know. So
I like to just be sensitive to language when it
comes to certain things. So I'm just going to refer
to it as the incident. And he was very graphic,
very descriptive pertaining to the tree, what was done, what
they were wearing, the location, the time frame, time of day,
(09:26):
accuracy of even like what time he thought it was.
It was unbelievable just to have who we would call
in a courtroom the star witness, that would be the ideal.
He's the one that really has the knowledge. And again,
he was there, so maybe he did not get directly
involved with the incident, but he's a party to the
action because he was physically there. I understand why he
(09:49):
doesn't want to go ahead and get himself involved any
further because he is fearful for his life, and that's Rightaly, So,
considering the individuals that we're dealing with, not just pertaining
to the suspects, but we're talking, as you mentioned earlier,
the corruption going on at the local level as well
as the state level, with the district attorneys locally in
(10:11):
addition to law enforcement, DA's for the local county. It's
the epitome of bad blood. It's absolutely horrible. Going ahead
and taking a look at him with regards to the
audio tape, I sat down and I wrote out a
statement analysis of what he was stating and what he
was dictating and the length of time it was but
(10:31):
in between his words, as well as his choice of
language objective language versus subjective language, and isolating the emotional component,
because given the circumstances, even us working this case, if
we're not emotional and we're not tied to this case,
then we've been doing our jobs way too long, and
that that's our time to retire. If a case that
(10:52):
you're working doesn't make you feel some type of way,
whether it's angry, upset, happy, then we have no business
doing our job.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
I can't agree more. I mean, I say it all
the time. When it stops being something that I feel
excited about and my adrenaline starts pumping and I want
to jump in the middle of it, and I want
to help somebody, and I want to right or wrong,
then it's time for me to go, you know, sit
by the water somewhere it's absolutely true.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Yeah, it's the same thing with us. I mean, and
I see it sometimes some of the cases that come
across my desk, not even just on the polygraph side,
because I'm also a private investigator where I'll speak to
some detectives that have just that are there and they're
in that hole I can't like go stage and I
can't retire yet, and maybe they've got kids in college.
Whatever the person circumstances is. That's fine. But I feel
(11:39):
like sometimes when individuals do retire, you can get that
new young blood, and the new young blood sometimes may
have a different perception to the cases because training today
is not what it was however many years ago. As
you know, there's some individuals that work in certain agencies,
they just become complacent. They refuse to learn, they refuse
(11:59):
to get the continuing education, the training courses, so they're
not up to date. So I'm not saying I'm pro retirement,
but I am very much pro continuing ed and making
sure that our officers and our colleagues are up to
date with the standard of practice.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
So let's talk about polygraph questions, because it's always a
debate in CID what questions should we ask and how
should it be phrased?
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Okay, so questions on a polygraph. Really there is a
maximum of four questions, four relevant questions. Depending upon the
format that the examiner is using, there could be anywhere
from a total of eight to ten questions on an
exam because we have control questions, we have irrelevant questions,
and we have questions such as referred to as symptomatic relevance,
(12:54):
meaning they're relevant to the situation, but symptomatic I want
to test kind of where your head is at. And
examples like that are or do you plan to lie
to any question on the test? And then the last
question would be did you lie to any question on
the test? So there's the relevant questions, meaning they're relevant
to what the situation is that's being tested. We can
ask a minimum of two or a maximum of four
(13:14):
on the exam. Then you have the irrelevant questions, which
are your baseline questions. Is this the year twenty twenty three?
Is today Friday? Aren't you sitting down right now? Is
this the month of June? Things like that. So I
have data from the individual at the time of testing
that those are known truths and that these are their
baseline responses. Then we have things that are referred to
(13:37):
as control or comparison questions. I'm going to ask you
questions similar to the relevant ones, meaning that they're about
the topic, but they're to go ahead engage probable lies
or directed lives. So let's say I was testing my boyfriend,
and I would say, since in a relationship have you
had sexual physical contact with anyone other than me? And
(13:59):
of course I would never my boyfriend because he's a saint,
and I'm going to keep it to that, But listen,
after you, after being thirty six years old in this
line of work and finally being able to lock a
man down knowing that he didn't go running once he
found out what I did for work, I have to
say a prayer to Jesus for that one.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Amen. But yep, So.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Comparison questions would be like, since in a relationship have
you flirted with another woman? Since in a relationship have
you come on to another woman? Since in a relationship
have you done anything that if she found out about it,
she would leave you? So those are kind of more
triggering questions, where in that case, if let's say my
boyfriend didn't cheat on me, he'd be more concerned about
(14:40):
those comparison questions, and those would go ahead and be
more probable for him to lie to so I can
see a lie reaction, Whereas if he's guilty, he's not
going to be worried about those questions. He's going to
be worried about, Oh, crahaps she's found out. She's going
to find out that she cheated on me. And the
same thing works in criminal investigations. I was dealing with
(15:01):
someone that was being accused of a sexual assault against
a minor or an adult, whoever the victim is. We
would ask them questions a relevancy pertaining to what they're
charged with, and those questions would come from the complaint
from court from grand jury of what the charges are,
or it would come from the witness and or complain
in victim's statement. Those comparison questions would be pertaining to
(15:26):
his prior actions of has he ever deliberately hurt someone
under his care in the past, has he ever gone
ahead and possibly excessively masturbated. Has he gone ahead and
possibly abused other women previously in the past, Just to
go ahead and show that he doesn't have a repeated
history of behavior.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Now your profession has changed a great deal. Like when
I first started, there was a little thing they put
around It's like a little bailt almost, that went around
your chest and then your finger and all these other
things in the polygrapher just stared at the machine, just
watched the needle the whole time. Well, the last one
that I had recently, it was just my eye and
(16:11):
he watched me the whole time. And I found that
really interesting. And let me clarify for people listening the
reason I had to take one recently. When you are
the crime scene investigator and the evidence custodian, if anything
goes missing or anything looks different or in and right
and there's an IA, you automatically are part of that investigation.
(16:35):
Several of us had to go recently and have a
polygraph because some evidence went missing. So again it was
the latest and greatest tool I guess that they sent
me to and I was just captivated by how this
was not invasive anyway, It was quick. There were very
(16:55):
few questions. I think there was maybe only five questions
and I was done. So I didn't know if you
have changed your equipment through the years, And like you said,
added the statement analysis and the body language bit.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
So the equipment actually started off with what's referred to
as the analog instrument, which is that giant gold gold cap,
the suitcase looking thing that would sit on the table
and you would watch the paper roll out on the
to the floor pretty much as long as the chart
was going and it was still measuring the same things.
It was still measuring heart rates, sweatland activity as well
as breathing. Coming up with the times, instrument manufacturers have
(17:33):
now developed the digital program. And what the digital program
is is pretty much the laptop computer which is attached
to a small little box and the boxes all of
the components plugged into it. So that's where you hear
the phrase of can you beat the box. The box
now is just a small little it's probably half the
size of a normal tissue box container, and that's the
(17:55):
actual polygraph with all the sensors and then the physical
chart tracings go into the computer. So what we would
see on the computer now is what used to show
up with the paper rolling out. The analog instrument actually
is typically now used with TV commercials and props and
movies because it's more recognizable as a polygraph instrument. That's
(18:16):
what people see, that's what they hear, that's what they've
been conditioned to. But now everything is digital. And the
reason why we've also gone digital is because, over the
evolution of time with regards to technology and science improving,
we have now found ways and by we, I mean
not me directly, but I'm talking on behalf of the
whole industry that we have found other components that we
(18:37):
can use to go ahead and determine deception. And the
most common one now being used is what's referred to
as the pull sox. I mean, everyone should know what
the pull sox is. We've all been through the pandemic
and we've even been to doctor's office. It's the thing
that you put on your finger to check the oxygen
in your blood. And now that we've learned with regards
to the call for oxygen with physiological responses, the individuals
(19:02):
oxygen level will decrease when they're lying or sorry, not
mind being deceptive. So that's another tool that we've incorporated
into it, in addition to sensors that are built into
our chairs as well as onto the sea, so we
know if an individual is trying to do countermeasures. Because
the golden rule is you wouldn't try and beat a
(19:22):
polygraph test if you knew that you were.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Going to pass. Simply stated, you're not going to pass.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
A polygraph test if you're not going to tell the truth.
And what I do is I actually take out a
piece of paper and I start making a tea chart
and I give the analysis of if you get a
hundred on a test in school, what does that mean?
And typically the smart one goes, oh, I got an
AI passed And I said, okay, good, what about a polygraph?
If you get a hundred on a polygraph, what does
that mean? And they go, oh, well, I passed, they
(19:49):
said perfect. I said what if you get a ninety
nine on a test in school? And they're like, oh,
I passed, but I'm just one point away. And I go, okay,
what about a ninety nine on a polygraph? They're like,
I passed, and I go, you're wrong. Ninety nine on
a polygraph means that you didn't tell me one hundred
percent of the truth. So the smallest little detail can
trip someone up on a polygraph test, which is why
(20:11):
it's really important that the examiner reviews the questions beforehand
to make sure that even the choice of language are
the questions that everything is clearly defined.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
And I just want to remind everybody she mentioned her
relationship earlier. Can you imagine if he's at ninety nine percent?
Oh yeah, oh this is hard. Yeah, you know what
I mean.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
He's a good eye. I got lucky. And the best
part is.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Oh, you know, I'm Jesus, No, I know, you know listen,
but like Mac, you know me.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
So for me to put up with anyone, or for
anyone to put up with me, we all need to
say a prayer for each other.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Oh yeah, but you're just laughing because listen to your analogy.
I'm like, oh, yeah, ninety nine percent, that is all good,
and you're like, nope. And then when you said that, no,
you're being deceptive about something. So they're that's where now
this investigation has to go. Is with that one percent?
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Yeah, I mean I mean comparatively that sometimes with women,
depending upon who's sitting in front of me, and I'm like,
how sensitive I feel that they're being. I'll say, listen,
it's like being you're being pregnant. You're pregnant, You're not
You're not a little pregnant, You're not a lot of pregnant.
It's what's one or the other.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
You said to me something a while back, you said, well,
I don't even need the person to be there with me.
It can even be somebody that's on TV. Would you
please get into that for me and explain to people
what you're talking about.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
Of course, So typically the polygraph examination obviously requires the
individual to be in front of me, present at one
of my locations, or I can go to their offices,
and that way we can attach the components pertaining to
spec land activity, respiratory activity, and blood pressure activity. And
what I've been trained in is to go ahead and
analyze deception through verbal speech patterns as well as body language,
(21:56):
in addition to even handwritten notes. So an individual can
go ahead and give me a statement pertaining to their
impression of what the crime was and or their side
of the story, and I can analyze it and go
ahead and determine are their signs of deception even in handwriting.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Okay, I think everybody's minds should be blown because again
people think I've got to be hooked up to this
machine for them to be able to get any type
of reading. It's not true. So if somebody had a
case where they could give you a nine one one
call and a whole movie and a police interview. You
could take those three things and analyze them and show
(22:36):
where the person's speech pattern changed, their body language changed,
and what that may or may not mean from the
questions that are beging to asked and the environment that
they're in.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
True, Yeah, True. I can go ahead and take a
look at a police interrogation video of the interview being done,
and I can go ahead and analyze the speech verbal
change of language in addition to hesitancy and latency and responses.
Even going ahead and taking a look and zooming in
at the pupils and with regards to rapid eye movement
(23:08):
and what direction the eyes are going, whether to the
left or the right, I can go ahead and determine
change of pronouns in language. Sometimes, for instance, using cases
involving miners, but specifically babies or infants, the parent and
or a person being interviewed sometimes can refer to as
my daughter, my daughter, my daughter, or my son, my son,
(23:30):
my son, and then once they go ahead and transition
and refer to the baby. An example of that is
them going ahead and isolating themselves from the child and
the crime and just referring to them as the baby
once they become deceased.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
And when I went through statement analysis training, our instructor
said over and over and over, a change of pronouns
means a change in reality.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
How many polygraphs have you done?
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Oh? God, you know what? I guess this question asked
a lot, And to be honest, I've never kept track.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Well, I will tell you I get asked the same thing,
how many cases have you worked on? I have no idea,
And it always amazes me when somebody can give an
exact number, because if you look at cases that I've worked,
been an expert own, or that I've just reviewed for
either TV, newspaper or magazine, I couldn't even begin to give.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
You a number exactly. And I think for sometimes with
those people that they're able to shoot out a number
right away. Obviously, we know that there's a plus or
minus field for how many cases you've worked you can't estimate.
But I feel like that there are some people that
just thrive on that number, where it becomes kind of
like part of their disposition and who they are and
what they're about. I can't live like that. I'm not
(24:45):
here as an examiner to live by a number. I'm
here to go ahead and give closure to individuals that
need it.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
I tell people all the time when I teach junior folks,
I can throw a party. But if I all of
a sudden get my sister involved, who can cook, And
I've got my sister involved, who's got music, And I've
got another sister that's got extra tables and chairs. Now
we're getting somewhere. Yeah, Well, then I've got another sister
(25:16):
that's going to bring us a set of her friends
that well, I mean, they're a party by themselves, so
they're going to put mine at the next level. And
then I'm going to invite folks like you. Well, now
we're talking about an epic event, whereas if I had
just done it by myself, it's very different. So if
you've got five different agencies and they can all put
(25:36):
some money in, they can all put some resources in,
they can all put some extraordinarily talented investigators in. Now
we're going to get somewhere.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Look at the work that we did in Indiana. Look
at the about of resources that with regards to Abby
and Libby's case from the time and the effort that
so many outside experts have done. I mean, I went
out to India at a state police because I went
to lecture to their polygraph examiners. They needed their continuing education,
(26:06):
so they reached out to me about coming out there.
So I spent about two or three days out there
with their officers, and I spoke with a couple of
people about the case and just to hear that the
resources that were going on and even some of their examiners.
I had been getting phone calls and text messages with
of Oh, we think we have a suspect, or we
think we have this, or we're going to be running
this type of exam. What are your thoughts and what
are your opinions? For me to even be able to
(26:29):
contribute that capacity, I felt grateful that they recognized me
as a source, because again, I'm a civilian. I've never
been to a police academy. The only government training that
I've ever had was going to an American Polygraph Association conference,
which I sit on the board of directors now for.
And I've attended seminars by instructors from the Secret Service
or NSA or the FBI, but I have no formal,
(26:52):
specific federal training. Everything that I've done and acquired has
been through my own learning. And again, as my father
is my mentor, I got very blessed to start off
in the family business early on. But I just think
that everyone should understand that just because he is my mentor,
and just because I started off young, I boss did
my you know what to get everything that I've got.
(27:13):
It definitely wasn't handed to.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
Me one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
And you and I, actually you and I had a
conversation about that, because Caroline's going to be applied to
schools and jobs and things like that also.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Right correct. And my son Hug is working now as
an investigator with the Public Defender's Office. And I can
tell you people will say to me, oh, well, of
course that's what they're doing. Let me tell y'all something
in some regard it works against them. Yeah, oh yeah,
you know, And I know you know. And the thing is,
(27:43):
they both have their own skill sets that they come
with because some of the gifts that Hug and Caroline
have you can't train. They both have horse sense, they
both have common sense, they both have compassion. You can't
teach those things. They either have it or they don't.
(28:04):
So you know, when huck first came to me and
he was like, Hey, I think I'm going to take
this job. I'm really excited about it. With the Public
Defender's Office. Well, a lot of people will joke and say, well,
you know, you must be real disappointed. Are you kidding me?
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (28:19):
No, that child is going to work twice as hard
for the best reason. Nobody, no investigator in the world
wants somebody innocent to go to prison, not a good one.
I mean, that would be something that would just eat
it you if you found out that this person's been
exonerated and you had a hand in putting them in prison,
(28:43):
what did you miss? I mean, that would be something
that's a nightmare.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
I would never sleep a day in my life. I
was actually supposed to be in London today over at
Crime gon UK and I canceled that trip because I
had gotten that phone call from the Federal Defender's Office
about there about the client on death row. And I
said to myself, I was like, you know what, if
I have an opportunity to make sure that a man
doesn't lose his life or something that he did not
(29:08):
did do not to you, I can't even speak now.
If he's going to lose his life for something that
he didn't do. I mean, I just need losing my
words because I'm so angry about this case and I'm
so passionate. But just to make sure that I can
play the role and make you sure that he does
not lose his life over something that he didn't do,
is I had to jump at it.
Speaker 1 (29:27):
But see, I think that's the perfect thing because you
work both sides. On the one hand, you do not
want an innocent person to go to prison, and you're
going to use all of your expertise to make sure
that doesn't happen. On the other side, you know there's
a killer walking around Oklahoma and you're not okay with that,
and you're going to use all your expertise to make
sure that doesn't continue to happen. So I think when
(29:49):
people talk to me or you or any of the
folks in our Zone seven, that's how we operate. Nobody
wants injustice, None of us that are in my world,
you know, want that to happen. Are there bad eggs
like in the case of Molly and Colt, where the
sheriff did end up getting indicted and was found guilty.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Of everything under the sun.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Doing a couple of things. I mean, that does happen,
But I'm telling you, in the scheme of things, when
you're talking about over seven hundred thousand law enforcement personnel,
he ain't even one percent. I promise you he's not.
And when we find those people, we go after them
with just as much vigor.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
We have seen throughout our careers the abuse that takes
place pertaining to being in law enforcement and having the badge,
And at the end of the day, we are both
in our careers for the idea of closure, of giving
people the answers they need pertaining to what happens in
(30:56):
a situation, and obviously me testing someone for a polygraph
test and whether or not they're significant other cheated versus
the work that you're doing with regards to crime scenes
and going ahead and developing what you need to to
support the case file so the families can have the
I guess closure that they need. But closure comes in
different capacities, whether it's positive or negative. We're giving the
answers to them that they need, and it's up to
(31:18):
them how they want to take the information that we've
acquired and work with.
Speaker 1 (31:24):
Last thing I want you to address, is it because
we get it a lot. When we start offering people
a polygraph, they'll say, well, that's not even admissible in court.
They love to say that, oh it's number one thing,
But will you address a little bit the polygraph as
an investigative tool.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
What happens is is that in criminal cases is it
allows me to go ahead and take a look at
who's the suspect and who's not. I want to clear people.
The polygraph isn't there to catch anyone. It's really there
to clear the innocent. And I think that's a big
misconception that oh, it's just there to trap everyone and
it's there to go ahead and show that they did
this or they did that. No, I want to clear
(32:03):
the innocent. I want to show that you did not
do what you're being accused of. So polygraphs have become
a way to use as an investigative tool, which in
law enforcement capabilities, the polygraph can be administered and it
will a clear the innocent b it will go ahead
and also test suspects. And one of the coolest thing
(32:24):
that I like about polygraph exams is something called a
peak of tension test, where if I have a suspect
in front of me, and I think that they could
possibly be tied to the being the person that committed
whatever crime it is. And let's say it's a murderer,
I can ask them was the murder weapon a gun,
a knife, a scissor, or any other types of baseball bat?
(32:44):
And what will happen is is that if they hit
on the specific murder weapon that we already know as
law enforcement is the actual weapon, that's a way that
we're able to go ahead and build a case against
the suspect because you wouldn't know what the murder weapon
is if you didn't commit the crime. So there's different
(33:05):
techniques and different types of polygraph tests that we can
run to go ahead and rule out the innocent as
well as convict the guilty. But going back to your
question about admissibility, polygraph tests in the United States are
admissible in one state, and that state is New Mexico.
There is admissibility in all federal venues, including immigration court,
(33:30):
which has now become a big thing pertaining to the
asylum as well as the border control issues, which is
a separate story. But with regards to admissibility by stipulation,
it's allowed with regards to both the defendant and the plaintiff,
whether it's a civil matter or a criminal matter, for
both individuals, as well as the courts to stipulate what
(33:52):
exactly will be admissible and what will not. And I
would say that takes place in about fifteen to twenty states,
but otherwise in the rest to the country it's not admissible.
I can speak to New York, which is predominantly where
my practice is based out of where on the criminal side,
it's allowed on pre conviction and post conviction of if
(34:14):
an individual is gone ahead and under investigation for let's
say bank robbery, but they didn't actually shoot the guard
during the robbery, they only drove the getaway car, so
they can take a pre conviction polygraph test pertaining to
their narrative of the bank robbery, so they can get
a reduced sentence versus I didn't actually kill the guard.
(34:35):
The other side of it is post conviction, which is
the innocent project work that we've talked about previously during
our chat here, which I'm absolutely loving, by the way,
where the innocent individuals are wrongfully convicted and they can
go ahead and file wh's referred to as a four
to forty motion to vacate their conviction and they'll take
a polygraph test to go ahead and show that they
(34:57):
didn't do this, And it does work with a guard
post conviction. There was an individual that had served twenty
seven years in a Buffalo facility in New York. He
took a polygraph test with our office. He was released
within forty eight hours after doing twenty seven years.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
Wow, Mercy, Yeah, could you imagine?
Speaker 2 (35:15):
No?
Speaker 1 (35:16):
I mean I can't, And that's what I'm telling you.
Those stories are just gut wrenching. But that's again why
I wanted people to hear from you today, and that's
why when I started by saying she is as smart
as she is fun, it's the truth. So with Colt
and Molly, what do you think could be done now
using your techniques that have not been done.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
From the conversations that you and I have had offline
pertaining to this, I mean, there's deception just flying past
their heads and hit in the.
Speaker 1 (35:47):
Wall from almost everybody involved, from the sheriff to the
friend driving, to neighbors to I mean, you just don't
even know who or what to believe because so much
of it is unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
I really truly think that this case needs a fresh
set of eyes, not only from OBSI, but also top
to bottom, like whoever has had their hands or even
a finger on this case needs to just be removed.
And you do need a whole new team, because again,
advancements and technology are different possibilities. I mean, look at
(36:22):
what's going on in the media now, how cases are
being made with DNA. How much DNA testing was previously done.
We don't know. We don't even know if what we've
seen in a case file is even accurate, because there's
so much corruption from the agency that there could be
pieces of evidence that are not even inventoried, evidence that
wasn't even properly collected, chain of custody wasn't done effectively,
(36:43):
So it's put god only knows aware in what box.
So I think that as a whole, the agency needs
to be welcoming of outside vendors and or subcontractors to
come in and really assist their investigation. I think that
because it is a smaller agency, because it is a
smaller county, they also don't have the resources. And if
(37:05):
you don't have the resources, you need to put your
pride aside. Again. Next month, we're coming up on ten
years of no answers, ten years of disappropriation of government funding,
not putting put towards this case, ten years of judicial
and what legal malpractice is what I like to call it.
So something's got to get done because there's no reason
(37:27):
that this should be in the situation that it is. Well.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
I have been advocating that this case needs to be
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Oh yeah, BIA needs
to take this case over period.
Speaker 2 (37:39):
But the issue is obs I won't do it because
if it's an ego and pride.
Speaker 1 (37:42):
Thing, we will see because ego and pride has no place.
It has no place, no, not an ecomal investigation. I mean,
it's got to be teamwork. You've got to just everybody
that's got a tool and an expertise and a valid idea.
They need to all come together. I appreciate you being here,
(38:03):
and you will be back. There's no doubt we have
other cases we need to talk about together. But I
just wanted people to hear from you. Hear all the
different sides of a polygraph, all the different ways it
can be used as an investigative tool to put people
in prison and to get people out, And to me,
that's the whole gig. Right there, y'all. I'm going to
(38:24):
end Zone seven the way that I always do with
a quote, but tonight it ain't from somebody that was
in my Zone seven. It's just a quote that I
thought was particularly applicable. Listen. I don't know anything about polygraphs,
and I don't know how accurate they are, but I
know they'll scare the hell out of people. Richard M. Nixon,
(38:47):
I'm Cheryl McCollum, and this is Zone seven.
Speaker 2 (39:00):
Listen. Name
Host
Sheryl McCollum
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.